Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

  1. David C. Fajgenbaum
  2. Johnson S. Khor
  3. Alexander Gorzewski
  4. Mark-Avery Tamakloe
  5. Victoria Powers
  6. Joseph J. Kakkis
  7. Mileva Repasky
  8. Anne Taylor
  9. Alexander Beschloss
  10. Laura Hernandez-Miyares
  11. Beatrice Go
  12. Vivek Nimgaonkar
  13. Madison S. McCarthy
  14. Casey J. Kim
  15. Ruth-Anne Langan Pai
  16. Sarah Frankl
  17. Philip Angelides
  18. Joanna Jiang
  19. Rozena Rasheed
  20. Erin Napier
  21. Duncan Mackay
  22. Sheila K. Pierson

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.07.20073981: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    4] We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv from Dec 1, 2019 to March 27, 2020 using the following terms “COVID19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019-nCoV”.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    BioRxiv
    suggested: (bioRxiv, RRID:SCR_003933)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This systematic review has several important limitations. In view of the limited number of randomized controlled trials, all papers published in PubMed or archives were included. From our standpoint, data archived articles about patient characteristics and treatments were important and unlikely to change during the peer-review process. Given the current crisis, we chose to enlist a large number of extractors to review the 2,706 papers. To improve data quality, a medical doctor or medical student re-reviewed every single extracted case and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus among extractor #1, extractor #2, independent reviewer (JSK), senior statistician (SKP), and principal investigator (DCF). This sample set is highly skewed towards hospitalized patients and thus is not likely representative of all COVID19 patients, and publication bias is likely. Specifically, physicians tend to write up cases where patients have positive outcomes. Also, physicians with resources to write articles may have more resources available to treat their patients. Mortality was not assessed as the majority of publications did not report survival and many patients were still hospitalized at the time of publication. Instead, we used TCMR. This aggregated outcome helped us to overcome the heterogeneity of outcomes reported across studies. However, we did not consider the concurrent or sequential drug use when associating time to clinically meaningful response. Further, we could not control fo...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1007/s40121-020-00303-8
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.07.20073981 on medRxiv